Americans are not free, at least not as free as they think, or compared to Canadians, or the Dutch

MayCaesar

These indexes are pretty subjective. Different countries feature extended freedoms in some areas, and restricted freedoms in other areas. Hong Kong, for example, is one of the several freest economies in the world, but the political freedoms people have there are on par with those in soft authoritarian states. Taiwan allows people a lot of political freedoms, but the economy is heavily controlled by the state. In Sweden, people are relatively independent from the central government, but the municipalities restrict their freedoms tremendously.

I do not like the degree of economical freedoms the US at the moment provides, but as far as social freedoms go we, pretty much, are on top of the world. The US is the only country having an explicit constitutional prohibition of state-issued censorship in the world, and even though that prohibition is not always respected, in practice it applies to everyone but the very negligible minority of people.

TKDB

@billbatard

What inspired your forum statement?

"Americans are not free, at least not as free as they think, or compared to Canadians, or the Dutch."

@billbatard, are you maybe not an American citizen, and your posed statements, maybe speaks to that probability? 

Plaffelvohfen

@billbatard

I somewhat disagree... US citizen are more free in some areas and less in others, it's far from being a binary issue...

billbatard

@MayCaesar I want to add this index was produced by the cato institute, an arm of the Libertarian party , so yes they are subjective but strongly biased in the same ways you yourself are no? and even they admit America isnt as free as canada, and is as free as 'socialist' sweden so there 

TKDB

In regards to The CATO Institute:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute

"The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch,[6]chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries.[nb 1] In July 1976, the name was changed to the Cato Institute.[6][7] Cato was established to have a focus on public advocacy, media exposure and societal influence.[8] According to the 2017 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report(Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program, University of Pennsylvania), Cato is number 15 in the "Top Think Tanks Worldwide" and number 10 in the "Top Think Tanks in the United States."

America is as "free," as the criminals, the offenders, and some of the illegal aliens,or immigrants allow the country to be, via their individual crimes being committed against their individual victims.

Perhaps it could be said, that other countries are as free, in the same sense? 

Applesauce

no other country has a right to free speech
I'm not sure how many if any have a right to bear arms

Canada the gilded cage

Plaffelvohfen

@Applesauce

A whole lot of countries have a right to free speech in their Constitution...  

The right to bear arms? True it ain't a right in the Canadian Constitution but Canadians don't see that as a "right" anyway but as a privilege that is regulated and licensed, similar to laws that allow Canadians to drive cars. It's is not even an issue for Canadians except for a very small fringe... This fringe is going slightly bunkers right now because we're opening discussions about banning handguns in Canada right now... 

Funny thing though, John A. MacDonald (Prime Minister (1867–1873, 1878–1891))  generally opposed new gun laws, arguing that "citizens needed arms to protect themselves from American criminals who crossed into Canada,"    We should've built a wall to protect ourselves from the "bad yankees"...  

 

Applesauce

Plaffelvohfen said:

@Applesauce

A whole lot of countries have a right to free speech in their Constitution...  

can you name one?  I didn't see any on the list that was like what is in the U.S. constitution.

Plaffelvohfen

@Applesauce

Are you saying that US free-speech is the only "real" free-speech?? 

But sure, here are a few countries with Constitutional free-speech rights: Canada, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal (most if not all of Europe really), Israel, Japan, and it goes on....

MayCaesar

@Plaffelvohfen

There is a difference though between a passage in favor of free speech rights, and a passage against infringement on free speech. The former, indeed, many constitutions have; even the USSR constitution had a similar clause. The latter, however, is what really defines a true free speech protection.

A simple clause in support of free speech is based on allowance, that is that, by default, free speech is not allowed, and the government explicitly allows it. The clause against the infringement on free speech, on the other hand, protects the natural free speech rights from being impeded by the government.

The difference here is between the approaches "what is not allowed is prohibited" and "what is not prohibited is allowed". Subtle as the difference may seem, it is enormous in practice. You do not need to state "People are allowed to eat apples", because it is assumed by default. When you do need to state "People are allowed to speak freely", then some cultural problem becomes obvious. It is not something that should be stated, it is something that should be assumed, and a protection should be in place against the infringements on it. This is what the US has, and, as far as I know, no other system does.

The US also does not have a perfect one. The US protects free speech from being infringed upon by the federal government, but the local governments are still free to restrict it. It is unfortunate, but it is still the best the world has as of now.

---

It is also worth noting that speech free from the government is not necessarily free from everything else. In this regard, I am not so convinced that the US has the freest speech in the world. Something like Finland or Denmark may have fewer legal protections in place, but in practice people will let each other say whatever they want there with no repercussions.
On the other hand, in the US a large fraction of the society is somewhat retrograde, and while the government will not punish you for expressing the unpopular opinion, some people will try to do everything they can to silence you. Corporations also often have little respect for free speech within their domains - say, Youtube bans countless videos relentlessly over things they seem as dangerous.

Small developing democracies like Estonia or Taiwan in this regard may be the nations with the freest speech in the world. The giants like the US or France can be much more conserved in their long-lasting culture to embrace novel ideas as openly.

Plaffelvohfen

@MayCaesar

True, there are differences... But even in the US, right to free speech is not absolute, now is that a good thing? I guess we could debate it...  

Applesauce

Plaffelvohfen said:

@Applesauce

Are you saying that US free-speech is the only "real" free-speech?? 

But sure, here are a few countries with Constitutional free-speech rights: Canada, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal (most if not all of Europe really), Israel, Japan, and it goes on....

um nope, many of them have hate speech laws or other arbitrary constraints on speech or the ability to.  the U.S. rights are recognized not granted by the government like other countries.

Plaffelvohfen

@Applesauce

Are you saying that in the US, free speech is absolute?? 

Applesauce

@Plaffelvohfen

seriously?

AlofRI

Lately, the ability to ABUSE free speech is "absolute" in the U.S., sadly, as is the abuse of many of our freedoms. JFK said: … the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened." It seems everyone (well, almost), in the U.S. thinks THEIR rights are the only ones that count! THAT is not freedom, that is the abuse of it.

Another said: "A people who values its privileges above its principles soon loses BOTH"!  D.D. Eisenhower  
Those are the dangers we face today with the swamp we have in Washington, (the one that was supposed to have been drained :-), and in the report I saw, The U.S. was rated 17th. How the proud have fallen. :-(

CYDdharta

AlofRI said:

 The U.S. was rated 17th. How the proud have fallen. :-(

Fallen?!?  The US was in 23rd place just 2 years ago.  At least we're headed in the right direction, finally.

Applesauce

AlofRI said:

Lately, the ability to ABUSE free speech is "absolute" in the U.S., sadly, as is the abuse of many of our freedoms. JFK said: … the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened." It seems everyone (well, almost), in the U.S. thinks THEIR rights are the only ones that count! THAT is not freedom, that is the abuse of it.

Another said: "A people who values its privileges above its principles soon loses BOTH"!  D.D. Eisenhower  
Those are the dangers we face today with the swamp we have in Washington, (the one that was supposed to have been drained :-), and in the report I saw, The U.S. was rated 17th. How the proud have fallen. :-(

you obviously don't know what JFK was talking about.
think about it, who's rights would be threatened?  those who don't agree with the majority or are deemed unworthy by the majority.  You don't have to protect speech you agree with, the protection is for the speech you don't.

rights are not privileges you must not be American if you don't know the difference, or a very ignorant one if you are, one or the other.

wow you are really off the reservation on this, try a better search engine or something.

John_C_87

Is this a comment based on land of the free and home of the brave in a song? A comment based on the establishment of freedom from slavery? In basic principle a person does not realistically want to be free they wish to maintain a self-value in relationship to assigned cost if informed in an intention of whole truth.

MayCaesar

@AlofRI

Perhaps you simply do not understand the concept of a right. No one's rights are threatened when someone speaks their mind. There is no "right to not be exposed to opinions one does not want to hear", nor can there be.

Many people nowadays do not understand the difference between a right and a privilege. A right is the legal ability of one to act. A privilege is the legal guarantee for one to receive. A right is the right for free speech. A guarantee is a guarantee to be protected from others exercising their right for free speech. These two are at an impasse, and liberal societies value rights higher than guarantees, giving up on safety and security in the name of freedom and liberty.

People with collectivist views have never been big on freedoms and liberties. They want everything to be controlled, everyone to be protected from the scary real world. Fortunately for us, this nation was founded on very different principles. And according to those principles, what you personally see as "abuse" is the exact opposite of abuse.

One cannot "abuse free speech", by its very design. One can, however, abuse their legal powers to infringe on people's right for free speech.

John_C_87

Maybe not, this is what I can prove past what others may think at the moment. For in national defense when needed. 
The United State in whole is a basic principle of freedom from independence, when not speaking directly in the context of holdings of America as the United States of America. The whole truth is we are many independent states with a liberty founded on freedom of judicial separation set with constitutional goal as common defense, which is centered around a nation with belief as goal in a equality to liberty by prudence in legal matters both foreign and domestic. 

F.Y.I.
In Context Canada, Europe, Asia, and United Arab Emirates are not in the contest to be in Untied State of judicial basic principle combined with legal precedent are they?